770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014

By Kenneth Richard

It is apparently regarded as “consensus” science that more than half of the climate changes occurring since the mid-20th century have been caused by humans. For example, the IPCC’s “consensus” statement from 2013 reads like this:

It is extremely likely more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

The “extremely likely” designation for this position seems to suggest there is little to no disagreement with this statement in the scientific community, or at least this is what we are apparently supposed to believe.

Only a relatively minor and inconsequential role

Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation. Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers.

In 2014, there were almost 250 papers that may support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position. see here.

In 2015, there were over 280 papers that may support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position, see here.

240 papers already in 2016

Now updated for the first 6 months of 2016, a review of the literature has already uncovered a list of 240 papers published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals that support a skeptical-of-the-consensus position, see here.

This 2016 list includes 43 papers supporting a Sun-Climate link, which can be added to the 188 papers linking the Sun to climate changes published in 2014 (93 papers) and 2015 (95 papers).

Voluminous evidence

This voluminous evidence of a strong non-anthropogenic influence on climate would seem to undermine the IPCC’s contention that the “consensus” position (e.g., climate change is mostly caused by humans) has been wholly accepted in the scientific community.

Would it be too much to ask for the IPCC to consider this scientific evidence when issuing their next report?

“Would it be too much to ask for the IPCC to consider this scientific evidence when issuing their next report?” – Kenneth Richard asks rhetorically

Given that the IPCC has a mandate to find human causes of climate change, and is not charged with showing there aren’t any, then yes, it would be “too much to ask.” – I answer not so rhetorically for any out there who still think the IPCC are at all objective.http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/

Do you want thousands of husbands / wives and their children to suffer from poverty? Do you want the careers of innumerable scientists dragged through the dirt? Do you want international institutions, respected by the world’s governments, to be discredited? Do yoy?

The IPCC have been used as the front to validate a massive overblown fraud . It seems highly unlikely they will be issuing another scary global warming opinion report as they no longer serve a purpose .

Too many papers coming out now letting the hot air blow off the much hyped earth has a fever propaganda .
Did the former IPCC chair ever resolve the allegations of work place sexual harassment before the court in India ? Court case in July ?

It is not just a matter of the numbers of papers. Science is not a democracy so such numbers do not mean anything. The AGW conjecture is full of holes and is based on only a partial understanding of science. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and plenty of science behind the idea that CO2 has no effect on climate. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase of CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. Only one value can be correct. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of research, the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. The IPCC ignores estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 that are close zero for fear of losing their funding. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the insulating effects of the atmosphere and would have been evidenced by an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Hence the climate sensitivity of CO2 must be close to zero.

[…] I would have expected this Council to be more conservative and not fall into the trap of socialism-is-better mentality. But it seems they have elected to go that route (such as accepting, blindly without question, that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, regardless of the science papers that rebuke that theory). […]

But at the end the problem is other: science is not democratic, the true is not achieved by voting. Remember Einstein “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”, or Feyman “when hypothesis not agree with observations or experiments is false. It doesn´t matter attractiveness, the author, or his authority; if not agree with data, experiments or observations, is false and erroneous” (I am sorry for translation…, I have lost the original).
Remember Galileo…

[…] Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation. Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers. (Source) […]